Appeal 3287989

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring occupants at [address], with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling with bay windows, finished in white render. The site shares a rear boundary with properties on [address] and a side boundary with properties on [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, and Gladstone Park is located nearby. The application seeks permission for a first-floor rear extension, that would be situated on top of the existing ground floor rear extension.

There are examples of alterations and extensions on nearby properties, specifically dormer extensions. Though the properties are detached, and some have been extended at first floor level, there is a well-established building line at this level along Park Close. The building line is particularly apparent when viewed from the appeal site and is reinforced by the properties being on an incline. Nearby properties have flat roof single-storey extensions and, by adding bulk above this level, the development would appear obtrusive and interrupt the building line. Although there would be limited views of the development from the public domain, it would be visible from neighbouring properties and the elevated position would exacerbate views of the development from properties on [address].

The plans propose for the extension to be stepped in from the side elevation of the host dwelling. Although this would reduce the massing of the addition, it is not a design feature that is characteristic of this enclave of properties. As a result, the development would appear incongruous and disrupt the rhythm of development along Park Close. Both the Council and appellant state that the development would comply with certain design elements of Council guidelines on extensions particularly in relation to the length of the extension. However, these documents are provided as guidance and state that extensions may be acceptable in some circumstances. Consequently, regard must be given to site specific circumstances.

For the reasons given above, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Notwithstanding compliance with aspects of the [name] & [name] 2, adopted 2018, the development would fail to comply with Policy CP 17 of the London Borough of [name] (CS), adopted 2010, and Policy DMP 1 of the London

Together these Policies seek to resist inappropriate development that does not complement the locality in terms of siting, layout, and scale.

The appeal site sits perpendicular to the properties on [address] and the development would specifically be located alongside the boundary with [address]. Although the extension would be set back from the boundary, due to the elevated position of the appeal site, the development would be highly prominent from the neighbouring property and within the curtilage.

Cumulatively, with the existing outbuilding, the development would add bulk along the boundary and due to its height and width, it would have an unpleasantly enclosing and overbearing effect on the private garden of No 151. The Council has also noted that the development would be contrary to the 45- degree rule, as explained in the [name] 1, adopted 2018. This reinforces my concern regarding the materially harmful effect on the garden of No 151.

Although neighbouring occupants have raised concerns about how the development would impact sunlight, the appellant has provided a daylight and sunlight report. The report shows that a two-storey extension would have extremely minor effects on any of the surrounding properties in terms of a reduction in either daylight or sunlight. I have been provided with no substantive evidence to refute the findings of the report and therefore I see no reason to disagree.

I conclude for the reasons given above, although acceptable in some regards, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants at [address], with particular regard to outlook. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy DMP 1 of the DMP, which seeks to require that all development provides a high level of internal and external amenity.

It is acknowledged that the appellant wishes to extend the property to provide an additional bedroom for their extended family and this is given limited weight. However, this does not outweigh the harm to both character and appearance and living conditions that has been outlined above.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed